Database Search Result Details
|
First Name
|
Raymond
|
|
Last Name
|
Hartman, et al.
|
|
Decision Date
|
7/30/2019
|
|
Docket Number
|
2018-1141-CONS
|
|
ALJ
|
JSF
|
|
Respondent
|
Division of Highways
|
|
Employment Type
|
STATE
|
|
Job Title
|
TW2 Operator
|
|
Topics
|
Selection
|
|
Primary Issues
|
Whether Intervenor proved that there was no flaw in the selection process and that it was not arbitrary and capricious.
|
|
Outcome
|
Granted/Denied
|
|
Statutes
|
W. Va. Code § 6C-2-6
|
|
Related Cases
|
Jackson v. Grant County Bd. of Educ., Docket No. 97-12-224 (Oct. 16, 1997); Holmes v. Berkeley County Bd. of Educ. and Dave Rogers, Docket No. 96-02-070 (Jan. 13, 1998); Lewis v. W. Va. Dep't of Admin., Docket No. 96-DOA-027 (June 7, 1996); Blake v. W. Va. Dep't of Transp./Div. of Highways, Docket No. 97-DOH-416 (May 1, 1998); McCloy v. Div. of Rehabilitation Ser., Docket No. 2014-1499-DEA (Oct. 22, 2015); Long v. Kanawha County Bd. of Educ., Docket No. 00-20-308 (Mar. 29, 2001); Brown-Stobbe/Riggs v. Dep’t of Health and Human Resources, Docket No. 06-HHR-313 (Nov. 30, 2006)
|
|
Keywords
|
Selection; Intervenor Appeal; Hiring Process; Tangible Work Experience; Qualifications; Arbitrary and Capricious
|
|
Intermediate Court of Appeals
|
|
|
Circuit Court
|
|
|
Supreme Court
|
|
|
Synopsis
|
Grievant and Intervenor applied for a Transportation Worker 3 Equipment Operator position with Respondent, Division of Highways. Respondent selected Intervenor over four certified backhoe operators, due to his skill as an equipment operator. Grievant argues that Respondent should have selected a candidate who was certified as a backhoe operator. Grievant further contends that Intervenor should not have been credited with any equipment operating experience he gained as a minor. The level one evaluator granted the grievance in part, but directed Respondent to repost the position and select the most qualified candidate based on a fair comparison of experience in compliance with all procedures and policies. Intervenor appealed, arguing that Respondent did nothing improper in considering the expertise Intervenor gained while operating equipment as a child on his family farm and ranking him above certified candidates, because he was clearly the best equipment operator. Intervenor proved that Respondent did not act arbitrarily and capriciously in selecting him over certified candidates and crediting him with expertise gained as a minor. Accordingly, Intervenor’s appeal is GRANTED.
|
Back to Results
Search Again